Concentrating the mind on emissions targets
Blog Post | Christine Milne
Thursday 4th September 2008, 5:03pm
by TimHollo in
- Climate Change & the Zero Carbon World
- International Issues
- Arctic Ice Melt
- Climate Change Impacts
- Climate Change Science
- Climate Refugees
- Drought
- Emissions Targets
- Emissions Trading
- Garnaut Review
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC)
- International Climate Negotiations
- Kyoto and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC)
- Peace & Security
- Sea Level Rise
- Zero Carbon
This piece by Christine ran in Crikey's email today.
Late in August, while the Business Council of Australia was making its ambit claim to limit Australia's emissions reductions to no more than 10% cuts by 2020, the famous North-west Passage around the north of Canada opened.
A few days later, just as Martin Ferguson was circulating his "softened" emissions trading proposal to big polluters, the North-east passage, around Russia, also opened.
Both these historically and strategically significant events have occurred individually in recent years as the Arctic summer ice has progressively melted. But this is the first time in human history that both passages have been open simultaneously, making the North Polar ice cap an island, and the consequences are far-reaching.
At the end of this week, when Ross Garnaut gives his most critical advice to the Rudd Government - his recommendation as to the short, medium and long-term caps on greenhouse gas emissions for Australia - he must keep those consequences at the forefront of his mind.
As Professor Garnaut well knows, what is happening at the top of our world will flow through to the rest of the planet if we don't act swiftly and decisively to turn around our emissions and build a new, zero emissions economy across the globe. The Arctic is the driver of several tipping points that, if breached, could send our climate spinning out of control.
The Arctic ice plays a vital role in the Earth's energy balance through a phenomenon known as albedo. White ice reflects much of the Sun's energy back into space while dark water absorbs that energy, leading to both local and global warming. As more ice melts, replaced by the dark sea surface, the heating process is dramatically accelerated. We know that the Arctic ice collapse of recent years is already having flow-on effects around the edges of the Greenland ice sheet, and in the Siberian and North American permafrost.
If we trigger the melting of that permafrost, releasing billions of tonnes of methane into the atmosphere, all bets are off as far as warming is concerned. Our planet will head into a runaway heating cycle of 6C and more, leading to widespread inundation, agricultural collapse, loss of drinking water for a third of the global population, and all the consequent geopolitical and security implications.
Is it alarmist to raise this prospect? Given the high scientific likelihood that, if we do not rapidly change the way we power our society, it will come to pass within the lifetime of our children, I don't think so. Rather it is an alarm call that we would be foolish to sleep through.
What this means for Professor Garnaut, and the Rudd Government, is that any policy framework that seeks to address climate change must actually seek to prevent runaway climate change. We must seek to limit warming by as much and as fast as we still can or else the warming we have already locked in may swiftly overtake us. A policy which seeks to make incremental change, which seeks to cut emissions at the edges, without a plan to completely decarbonise our economy, is not a climate change policy. It may be an economic policy. It may be an election policy. But it is not a policy that seeks to address climate change.
Those who say we should wait for the rest of the world, including some of the world's poorest people, to act before we do are apparently happy to let global negotiations continue on the road to nowhere where no country moves before the others. We desperately need a circuit-breaker. Coal-dependent Australia making a bold leap into the post-carbon economy could provide such a jolt to the geopolitical debate that a new world becomes possible.
Professor Garnaut and the Government have one clear decision ahead of them. Regardless of the whole array of details which will govern the operations of the emissions trading scheme and make it more or less efficient, the fundamental point is that it must have a cap that is consistent with an environmentally credible limit on emissions.
At one end of the spectrum, the Greens are arguing for an environmentally responsible, challenging, but achievable target of 40% cuts below 1990 levels by 2020, setting Australia on track to zero net emissions by mid century at the latest. At the other end, the Business Council of Australia claims that it cannot countenance a scheme that reduces emissions more than 10% below 2000 levels over that timeframe.
Will the Government side with big business, regardless of the consequences? Will it at least join the Europeans in committing to 30% cuts by 2020? Or will it step up to the mark that it was elected to achieve and choose the path that gives our planet a decent chance?
Bookmark and share
Climate Change
I think, as many scientists think, that climate change is just a natural part of an cyclical process with industry and human activity playing a small part. Oh! Heretic!!!!
I think, as many conspiracists think, that climate change is being capitalised on by cozen Governments who see another opportunity for tax revenue; shame is the greens getting on-board. The greens' should be stentorian in advocating climate-friendly practices regardless of what the world is saying - regardless of human induced, or not, climate change.
This approach justifies living greener lives whilst not destroying industry or the environment; saving families money too. Everyone knows this is always going to result in middle-Australia forking out money.
brilliant Christine
The time for tokenistic fiddling at the margins is well and truly behind us...
Things are not looking good for this year's Arctic summer ice melt either: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html
As for the BCA, if its plaints that TEEIs really can't adjust and really will leave Australia if forced to, turn out to be true, I say good riddance. I don't believe they will find safe harbour anywhere else for long, and our civilisation can little afford their businesses to continue if they honestly cannot or will not abate.
See Ross Gittins on this nonsense also: http://business.smh.com.au/business/carbon-trading-big-business-vote-of-...
Emissions.
I dont want to waste the Greens Time I am a climate change Skeptic,and as sure as I am that Christine is exceedingly well motivated ,there is simply no real evidence about what she is suggesting as a result of Artic melt.And as insulting to the intelligence that may be, the truth these Passages are called Passages is because they were open before.So if there are records,scientifically and historically ascertained evidences and maybe even documents suggesting chaotic conditions for farmers and food production,this isnt a systems chaos leading to atmospheric failure.It must simply be another cycle of the weather,that isnt being researched properly for the sake of wanting to claim it is human induced.My problem isn't at all with the Greens,it is with the priorities of ascertaining from any scientific evidences the best thing to do under the new circumstances.There are many Russian scientists,even with what is happening up there,who are skeptics thoroughly.Surely this maybe because long ago they declined to accept the rationale of fossil fuel theory.That is they couldn't accept the bio-accumulation of dead species and resultant bacteria,etc. under pressure,as the erstwhile reason for oil deposits. And because they dont accept that,they are then more open to the challenge of wondering what is going on via more than biological and meteorological sciences,hence physics.The Physics that drives this understanding puts more emphasis on the sun's solar activity through sunspots.It may also make these skeptics much more adaptable at finding solutions,including an attitude of using carbon dioxide as fuel more effectively.And that is where my line starts.Too much emphasis has been placed on seeing CO2 as a human excreta legging its way around the atmosphere destroying life by heating up the atmosphere.I dont think there should be less concern about what is happening atmospherically,but if everyone is so convinced heating leads to heating,there have been some statistics that wont go away in the opposite direction.We still need a readiness and alertness either way it may trend until the blatantly obvious on a personal level is real.I hope the Greens haven't replaced the endangered emu,with a South African bird and the myths associated with the minimally observed.
Live up to carbon pollution reduction, Mr Rudd
When the Rudd Government rebranded the Emissions Trading Scheme as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, I thought there might be a valid point. Perhaps the change indeed signalled that there would be not a mere trade in emissions, but a necessary reduction in carbon pollution. That afterall is the point. In fact, as you point out, Christine, it is really the only measure of any such scheme. Will the targets adopted give us the best chance of averting dangerous climate change based on the best available science? If they don't, the measures are tokenism that will sacrifice Australia's opportunity for international leadership on this issue. If dangerous climate change comes to pass through inaction, will it be any sort of explanation to say that it happened because we failed to convince our economists?
Australia free-riding?
Good work Christine,
I noticed a rumour (from the Greens website) that Garnaut may use Australia's growing population as a reason for a weaker target.
Per-capita approaches to allocating emissions to different countries can either be based on the countries population during the year it emits, or during an earlier baseline year. If we were to suggest a target for ourselves based on projections of population, then we are basing a target on a projection, rather than real data. As far as I am aware, the targets in the Kyoto protocol, and other targets discussed (such as the "Bali box") are absolute targets. You can't negotiate an absolute target based on projections and expect it to have any integrity - it has to be based on real data.
If Australia is worried about making emission reductions because its population is increasing, then we should think about removing perverse incentives to increase the world's population such as the baby bonus.
Of course there is also the "minor issue" that a 450 ppm target would have a huge risk of dangerous climate change. And also the issue that scenarios for 450 ppm concentrations and lower usually require some "overshooting" making them more difficult to achieve. This overshooting implies that if possible, more cuts should be made now. The idea that one of the world's highest per-capita emitters only needs to make 0-15% reductions in the first decade of a scenario where overshooting is a problem is just plain silly.
Also, the McKinsey institute released a report suggesting that Australia could reduce its emissions in 2020 by 30% at a carbon price of less that $65. The dangerous events happening in the northern regions of the planet suggest that the expected social cost of carbon is far higher than $65. A 0-15% reduction by then would result in a carbon price far lower. To have a carbon price far lower than the social cost of carbon means that we are either free-riding on the rest of the worlds emission reductions, or committing ourselves to a situation where the costs of climate change are far higher than the costs of mitigation.
Emissions reductions
The idea that we should continue business as usual emitting on the basis that climate change may not occur is like saying pregnant women should have continued to take Thalidomide until it was proven beyond doubt that Thalidomide caused birth defects. Clearly the appropriate action is to cease the action at the first hint of a possible problem and not resume until we are completely sure there isn´t a program with doing so.
The climate status quo is not burning fossil fuels. Emitting CO2 into an uncertain climate system is not the status quo for climate. Even the greatest skeptic with half a brain will admit (if they are being honest) that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere could destablise climate even if they think its unlikely. And that understanding is more than enough justification to reach rapid agreement we should at least curb if not completely eliminate emissions.
Thalidomide may once have the been the best economic option in the sense that it was the cheapest way for the pregnant woman to derive a certain short term benefit. In the same way burning fossil fuels may be the cheapest way to produce energy in the short term, but it is simply not the status quo. Claims that our present approach to energy represents a status quo are a function of a corrupt thought process.
Emmisions reductions
Snodgrass
When you start to eat cold food ( produced by yourself), are a vegetarian, don't have heating or cooling when you are camping out under your tree, don't wear clothes, walk wherever you need to get from point A to point B you are totally self sufficient with no emcumbances on this earth then you can preach about emmission reduction.
Come up with some facts that CO2 contributes to climate warming, climate cooling or climate change which ever populist term you want to use.
How were you able to get your message onto this site. No power, no computer.
It appears that you want to carry on business as usual but not others.
Curbing does not equal living under trees
Nosha thats a massive leap you make. I said we should be able to reach agreement to curb emissions even if we think climate change is unlikely. I am not required to opt out of the debate in order to prove my point. What you expect would eliminate advocacy for reduction which is a tricky way of ensuring only your side of the argument is heard. If your arguments are robust then they should be comfortable with debate.
The truth is we can curb emissions and improve profitability at the same time. See my other post on the ROI from converting diesel generation to solar without subsidies while increasing corporate value.
Perhaps your fear of climate change response arises because you believe it means we must give up everything. In a supremely wealthy country like Australia it is not so difficult to reduce personal emissions.
What is really odd is that the those arguing against a response are peddling an unproven belief that reducing emissions will be a disaster and at the same time claiming the other side as suffering from a climate change religion delusion. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
If you look behind the curtain you will see those advocating most strongly against action are operating from a narrow self-interested profit motive. If you can make energy without coal then the coal company loses their mortgage over your lifetime cash flow. So we can expect they will deliver all kinds of fear propaganda to cling to the current paradigm. And this propaganda will cause people to believe without proof that reducing emissions will be bad. I would prefer they put their intellect to finding a way to make profits within a new lower emission paradigm.
Diesel generation vs Solar
I understand that 5% of our electricty generation in Australia comes from burning diesel. This largely occurs in remote island grids or standalone power systems that are far removed from the large grids.
Turns out that it is now much cheaper to use solar for this power than diesel. The only reason that diesel is being used as a source of power for remote stationary generation is because the people doing it are either ignorant or lazy.
I can import a 20 tonne container (30kWp) of thin film panels for $3 per Watt peak. I can buy inverters for $0.40 per Watt peak. I can set up a solar farm mounting frame for $1 per watt peak. I can wire it up for $0.40 per Watt peak. Cost is $4.80 per Watt peak. In typical remote locations that stationary diesel generation occurs I should get 1.8kWh per Watt peak per annum. This is a ridiculously simple system to set up. Not much more complicated that childs lego.
Half a litre of diesel will produce around the same 1.8kWh. In remote locations diesel is more expensive since it costs more to transport it. So lets say that half litre cost $0.75.
So for a $4.80 investment up front I get an annual return of $0.75. That is a 15.6% return on investment before we even look at RECs or the benefit of the protective hedge of making yourself immune from rising diesel prices. You also get the benefit of much lower maintenance costs.
This could work in conjunction with diesel and just supply the daytime load. That way you don´t need batteries and you will probably reduce diesel consumption by 30%. Talk about low hanging fruit!
So why do we allow people to either be so ignorant or stupid. The carrot doesn´t seem to be working. Perhaps we need to apply a stick by licensing all stationary diesel generators and metering them and only giving them the permit to operate it if it is used in conjunction with a solar array for daytime power.
Well said Cristine
And to be remembered that Penny Wong has deemed the good Professor to be merely "an input". This puts Garnaut's much anticipated next instalment into real politik perspective.
What data - why concentrate only on...?
If so much ice has melted already, why has the sea level not increased already?
It's wrong for emissions debate to include ice melt and sea level rise without being able to point to data showing the quantity ice underwater, data on shrinkage underwater due to melting, and data showing how the amount of thawed water remaining would be anywhere near enough to cover the whole surface of the world ocean and as well cause sea level rise of a metre or more as claimed.
Why is there need to concentrate the mind on emissions targets? Why not also concentrate on immediately closing the high evaporation area of Menindee Lakes so the next big Darling River flow will reach the Murray River? Why not fix the Coorong that is in dire need already?
Why not also concentrate on causes and solutions to the holocaust of Pacific island peace? Why not debate evidence of collapse of the ocean food web linked to Australian river-linked estuary amd ocean ecosystem environment including the Coorong?
really?
Oh for goodness sake. Evidence? LOOK HERE: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html Have you even bothered to look or you just prefer to assume there isn't evidence for what you don't want to know? There are truly monumental quantities of water locked up in the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets; facts readily available and comprehensively documented should you bother to look.
And the Arctic is -- wait for it -- SEA ICE, which means that for the most part it does NOT directly impact on sea level rise. However, by clearing the way for glacial ice (which is on land) and the ice shelves themselves to slip into the oceans, it certainly does matter a great deal. Then there is of course the flip from strong reflective albedo to a nice dark heat sink.
I'm truly sick and tired of climatology being treated as if it was something one could 'choose' to 'believe' in, rather than hard won, observable fact.
You people need to wake up.
Ice melt
John
Why would the sea level rise if the ice melts.
What takes up more room water or ice. As water freezes it expands pushing up the water level as it melts than surely the sea levels will fall.
Polite questions
Some people have been taught manners and politeness toward fellow humans. Others know how to look into data for what they wish to learn. Some people are practical lateral thinkers and others are focused academics. Some climatologists seem to be moving into 'seaiceology'. And some people seem to get annoyed when unable to answer a question themselves.
I am seeking to understand rise in sea level predicted to be caused by climate change.
In my opinion it does not appear there is enough bulk of ice in the world to thaw and cover the world ocean surface with a further 1 metre depth. Surely there is a climate mathematician that can provide basic measurements.
A one metre rise in sea level has been predicted, therefore I politely ask:
1. How many square cubic metres or other measurement of ice in total is situated above the ocean level of this planet?
2. Once thawed, what extra total space results from world ice total thawing, considering 11 parts ice makes 10 parts water?
3. What is the total square metre area or comparative measurement of the whole world ocean environment surface at sea level?
Even if square metre measurement is in trillions of trillions, what is the mathematical comparison equation?
I think I understand your
I think I understand your questions and thrust JCF, and all I can say it that the geological records indicate that there have been times when the Earth's oceans have been many metres higher than they are now (12 metres is one figure I seem to remember from tertiary studies some 30 years ago).
I haven't studied the whys or wherefores of the sea level heights of times past, but the geological records do appear to shoot a hole in your potential theory that "there is not enough ice (water) in the world to raise sea levels one metre".
The Emissions and it's affects!
Well, after reading Christine Milne's blog post about "Concentrating the mind on Emissions Targets" it got me thinking about what will happen if we "the community" do nothing about this major issue. As stated in Christine's post, the Council of Australia will try to decrease the Emissions by 10% by 2020. There was also a radio report about this stating that the Greens Party Chairman 'Bob Brown' talking to Mr Rudd stating some of the effects the Emissions can have to the World. Bob Brown is trying his hardest to ensure that the environment is protected because if these issues are not resolved than who knows what will happen, some scientists say that the Earth could lose the atmosphere.
There are also documentaries showing the effects that the emissions are having on the world, for example Greenland has suffered a lot because of the increase in the temperature their 'Ice Glaciers' are melting at a faster rate then what they are freezing. This could cause a shift in the 'Climate' or 'Weather patterns'. This could change Cyclones, Hibernation patterns for fish and the migration of birds and also fish. A television show called “Planet Science” showed an interesting documentary about Greenland’s Ice Glaciers melting at a quicker rate than what they were 5 years ago. A study made by MSNBC showed that Greenland Ice Glaciers / Ice Sheets are melting at an alarming rate.
Mark Chandler from the Columbia University said “Ice Glaciers are probably the biggest concern that people are looking at right now" in the field of climate prediction. There's a lot of fear out there right now, even among scientists, that ice caps are not all that stable," he told MSNBC.com. If the pace of global ice loss accelerates, sea levels might conceivably rise 6 to 16 feet (2 to 5 meters) over the course of a century, which he said would be "devastating."
Some of the changes we should make are that there should be more "Walk to work/school days" and there should be an increase in the care of public transport using advertisements. City Rail should lower the cost of Train Tickets because if the price drops maybe more people would catch the train. Also we should be planting more trees because Trees ‘feed’ on ‘Carbon Dioxide’. Some new ideas of lowering the Emission levels are; hydroelectric plants, Lights off! Sydney supports Earth Hour and Walk to Word day. The community should be trying to find a solution about ‘Fuel Prices’ and should be more concerned about Emissions.
As people say "We should preserve the environment for future generations". Fight for what’s right because people deserve it!
Here are some links (didn't know how to hyperlink)
- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11385475/
- http://www.smh.com.au/news/earth-hour/lights-off-sydney-supports-earth-h...
Recently I saw whole islands
Recently I saw whole islands and reef that sank down 800 - 850mm into the ocean following earthquake. I wrote about it and someone commented on how a region of the Mediterranean coast is known in History to have sunk down about 10 feet. I seem to remember being informed sometime that Australia's Great Dividing Range is a result of upheaval. So who can be sure of what displaced what on this planet.
As for ocean level rising due to melting of ice I look at the area of ice and it seems impossible to me that so little ice could the whole world sea level rise as much as predicted. I naturally wonder about relevant data.
My thrust involves need for collapse of the world ocean environment and impact and solutions to be a priority issues.
A couple of responses
Some interesting comments, but I suspect that some of the commentators should take a dose of reality.
1. It is neither realistic, nor achievable to base targets on a past year (say 1990), without taking future population projections into account. Planning targets on past data, without taking future projections into account may result in an initial plan for a reduction of say 10% on 1990 emissions, but through population growth an unachievable target of 25% may be required. Anybody who has been involved in project management knows that all projects must include allowances for growth. Remember that trying to set an unachievable target that results in major pain (say a 40% increase in energy costs as outlined by Garnaut if the whole carbon trading scheme is not handled correctly) will result in Mr, Mrs, Ms Average in the outer suburbs actively rejecting energy conservation, and probably voting in a Government that backs away from actions, and reverts to just talk.
2. Any additional costs to business WILL be passed to consumers. As an example just look at the effects of increased diesel costs. Anybody who shops will have noticed that prices just continue to rise. A fare slice of this is the cost increases of diesel being passed to consumers. I work part time (have retired from full time work) driving a delivery van, and the company I work for has implemented a $10 delivery fee for each delivery, to cover the cost of diesel. Some retailers delivered to advise that they may have up to 5 - 10 delivery a week, each have a delivery fee, so they have to add the additional costs to their goods. The result is everybody pays for the increases in cost of diesel. The same WILL happen to any additional costs businesses receive through a carbon tax. The business will not be out of pocket, the consumer will be. So people need to remember that when they go to buy a litre of milk, and it has gone up 5-10 cents, where the increase has come from.
3. It was pointed out above that 5% of energy is generated by diesel generators, and the per watt costs would be less using solar. I do not doubt this, and I am sure that if the Feds were prepared to pay for installation of the solar generators, people would happily accept. Until somebody else is prepared to pay for the solar systems, I suspect that they will remain diesel. Communities running diesel generators generally do not have the cash to pay, and I have not heard of any manufacturer offering to supply and install a system for free, or even allow a community to pay off a system over a number of years, through their savings.
In summary, I am sorry people, but in todays economic conditions, the Mr, Mrs, Ms Average (apart from possibly the well healed in the inner suburbs) is more concerned with being able to make their family mortgage payments, pay their bills, put food on their families tables, and have petrol to go to work, than suffer any pain that may come from an emissions trading scheme, or reduce emissions themselves. You really only need to look at the % of homes in the outer suburbs that have solar hot water services on their roofs. You can drive all day, and count the numbers seen on the fingers of your 2 hands.
Post new comment